Back to the original question: I maintain that the first thing we need to get na stable China after 1912 would be a stable and preferably Democratic Japan, one that at least makes a lien effort to keep it's promises towards China and the occupied territories. Perhaps if emperor Joshihito were in better health and lived longer a more successful Taisho era might accomplish that. This would be my first POD.
I honestly fail to see the relationship. A democratic Japan isn't inherently more likely to refrain from aggressive imperialism than an authoriatarian one. In fact, in the late 19th and early 20th century liberalism and ultra-nationalism often went hand in hand. The twenty one demands were made under a liberal government...
Also, I don't think the key for a democratic Japan lies with the Emperor but with a more unified liberal movement that is able to produce stable parliamentary governments and limiting military intervention in politics.
But anyway, regarddless of whether or not Japan is aggressive towards China, the later can still be unified under a stable government. The question is how such a government would fare in an eventual war against Japan. Most likely, given China's immense population and resources, in a timeline where the warlord era never happened, the balance of power could be so drastically different that Japan wouldn't even think to attack China.
better than otl, but the KMT itself, the second generation at least was massively corrupt, so yeah whilst no warlord era means more stability, i don't think it means development.
Corruption is indeed a very serious problem, but I'd argue that, at least in an early phase, it doesn't necessarily prevent economic development. As long as there is stability, a workforce and a pool of resources, economic growth just naturally follows. China's economy grew quite considerably during the Nanjing decade, precisely because of stability and despite the KMT's rampant corruption. Just imagine that over a larger period 1912-1937 instead of 1927-1937.
That said, there's no particular reason why corruption ITTL needs to be as much of a problem as it was IOTL. The KMT doesn't have to develop the same way, and there is no reason why the ROC would necessarily end up as a KMT one-party state.
The KMT under Sun Yat-Sen and after are different beasts entirely. Former wanted a true multi-party democracy, the latter wanted to become a virtual one-party state. It depends on what happens after Yatsen.
With a 1912 POD I think we can pretty safely take Chiang, and thus the OTL KMT as we eventually came to know it, out of the picture. In 1912, I think there was definitely a consensus within the party, but there were significant internal differences in policy. Despite being the intellectual and symbolic leader of the KMT, Sun Yat-sen stayed largely in the background during the 1912 election campaign. It was Song Jiaoren who did most of the work during this period, and he was the one who was expected to become premier. By all accounts, Song was more conservative than Sun and owed his electoral success to his ability to appeal to the upper classes (suffrage was very restricted in the 1912 election). So, while even he would be likely to pursue suffrage expansion (seeing as, although they might be more sympathetic to the other wing of the party, poorer people were still overwhemingly more likely to vote for the KMT than the more conservative opposition), it seems likely that he would crash with Sun (who I assume would emerge as the leader of the left-wing of the party) over things like land reform, taxation and social welfare. The result of this conflict is likely to determine the nature of the KMT for the years to come. Will it become a left-wing populist party that appeals to the lower-classes? Or a right-wing party that appeals to the landed gentry? Maybe something in between.
Also thing to keep in mind is that the 1911-12 revolution was anti-Manchu, and many called out that the revolution was not anti-monarchist.
While it is definitely true that there were anti-Qing monarchist movements in China (eg. Liang Qichao and co.), the Xinhai revolution itself was most definitely republican, as it was organized by the Tongmenhui (precursor to the KMT and already committed to republicanism) and sympathetic factions of the military. Yuan Shikai's cooperation was crucial for success, of course, but the revolution was done by republicans.
I agree that some kind of Han dynasty would be possible if anti-Qing monarchists had coalesced around a strong candidate (who obviously could not be Yuan Shikai), but as you say I'm looking for a republic here.
